Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Trump’s kakistocracy invites possible catastrophe

J.D. Vance and Matt Gaetz talking to each while walking

Matt Gaetz (right), at the time President-elect Donald Trump's nominee to be attorney general, was accompanied by Vice President-elect J.D. Vance to meetings with senators on Nov. 20. Gaetz subsequently withdrew from consideration for the post when it became clear he would not be confirmed.

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

“Kakistocracy” is trending again.

The obscure term, coined as early as the 17th century and defined by Merriam-Webster as “government by the worst people,” has surged on Google Trends since the election.

What does government by the worst look like? To the cynical, that question may call to mind Dorothy Parker’s famous response to the news that former President Calvin Coolidge had died: “How could they tell?”


Of late, the words “kakistocracy” and “kakistocrat” have started popping up again, a return of a trend from President Donald Trump’s first administration.

My guess is that the new currency of the term has much to do with Trump’s first wave of cabinet nominees for his second administration.

For example, many were incredulous when Trump named now-retired Rep. Matt Gaetz, the Florida Republican, to be attorney general, the nation’s top law enforcement officer. Gaetz subsequently withdrew his nomination amid discussion over whether the House Ethics Committee should make public the findings of its investigation of his alleged sexual misconduct and illicit drug use.

Hours after Gaetz withdrew, Trump named Pam Bondi, Florida’s former attorney general, to replace Gaetz, much to the relief of Senate Republicans, who were less than enthusiastic about having to vote to confirm a man accused (although Gaetz denies the claims) of having a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old girl.

Gaetz was by no means the only Trump nominee who has generated controversy.

Among others, all eyes turned to take a closer look at Pete Hegseth, the former Fox News host Trump proposed to be secretary of defense. Hegseth, a veteran of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has been accused of sexually assaulting a woman at a political conference in California. He also lacks experience at leading an organization anywhere near as huge and complex as the Defense Department.

Then there is Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whom Trump has picked to head the Department of Health and Human Services. Kennedy is long known for his conspiracy theories about vaccines, COVID-19 and AIDS — and, according to the Washington Post, he has big proposals in mind to change the way Medicare pays physicians.

Trump also tapped television personality Dr. Mehmet Oz (“Dr. Oz" of TV fame) to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Not surprisingly, Oz’ nomination caused consternation among some members of Congress. Critics fear he will expand the privatization of the Medicare system, and he has appeared in advertisements for Medicare Advantage providers in the private sector. Senators are well aware of how politically sensitive any changes in Medicare policy would be. In Capitol Hill wisdom, it’s a “third rail” issue — "Touch it and you die.”

Why would the incoming president invite controversy by fiddling with popular healthcare programs? Hardly any one would accuse Trump of humility in confronting big issues, whether he shows much knowledge of what he can do.

I am reminded of his lavish promises in his first presidential administration to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, until the program turned out to be a lot more popular than he had figured. Now he promises to improve the program, although he prudently avoids getting into specifics on how he plans to do that.

Shortly before the 2024 election, Trump transition co-chairman Howard Lutnick, now tapped to be secretary of commerce, took the time to promise that Kennedy would not be put in charge of HHS. The news came as a big relief to many, while we also wait to see what other duties Trump might find for him.

I recall a similar cloak of secrecy and uncertainty that surrounded the beginning of Trump’s first term.

Speculation abounds in Washington and Silicon Valley regarding another newcomer Trump has invited into the Washington scene: the colorful Elon Musk, richest man in human history.

With roughly 200 million followers on X, the social network formerly known as Twitter, Musk is a Digital Age media baron to reckon with. He’s also a major player in the space exploration and satellite communications business sectors, with sizable and highly important contracts with the U.S. government. And he’s the owner of a major car company (and the only one outside China that has figured out how to make a profit on electric vehicles).

In other words, Musk is setting off warning bells for those who worry about cronyism in government. Especially since Trump took up Musk’s idea for a yet to be formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), to be charged with cutting government waste.

A lot of Americans like the sound of cutting waste in Washington, but politically it’s tricky to carry off successfully. And if, as Trump has suggested, DOGE will be run by Musk and GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, good-government advocates had better strap in for the next four years. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.

Page is an American journalist, syndicated columnist and senior member of the Chicago Tribune editorial board.

©2024 Tribune Content Agency. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Read More

After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

An Israeli army vehicle moves on the Israeli side, near the border with the Gaza Strip on November 18, 2025 in Southern Israel, Israel.

(Photo by Amir Levy/Getty Images)

After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

Since October 10, 2025, the day when the US-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was announced, Israel has killed at least 401 civilians, including at least 148 children. This has led Palestinian scholar Saree Makdisi to decry a “continuing genocide, albeit one that has shifted gears and has—for now—moved into the slow lane. Rather than hundreds at a time, it is killing by twos and threes” or by twenties and thirties as on November 19 and November 23 – “an obscenity that has coalesced into a new normal.” The Guardian columnist Nesrine Malik describes the post-ceasefire period as nothing more than a “reducefire,” quoting the warning issued by Amnesty International’s secretary general Agnès Callamard that the ”world must not be fooled” into believing that Israel’s genocide is over.

A visual analysis of satellite images conducted by the BBC has established that since the declared ceasefire, “the destruction of buildings in Gaza by the Israeli military has been continuing on a huge scale,” entire neighborhoods “levelled” through “demolitions,” including large swaths of farmland and orchards. The Guardian reported already in March of 2024, that satellite imagery proved the “destruction of about 38-48% of tree cover and farmland” and 23% of Gaza’s greenhouses “completely destroyed.” Writing about the “colossal violence” Israel has wrought on Gaza, Palestinian legal scholar Rabea Eghbariah lists “several variations” on the term “genocide” which researchers found the need to introduce, such as “urbicide” (the systematic destruction of cities), “domicide” (systematic destruction of housing), “sociocide,” “politicide,” and “memoricide.” Others have added the concepts “ecocide,” “scholasticide” (the systematic destruction of Gaza’s schools, universities, libraries), and “medicide” (the deliberate attacks on all aspects of Gaza’s healthcare with the intent to “wipe out” all medical care). It is only the combination of all these “-cides,” all amounting to massive war crimes, that adequately manages to describe the Palestinian condition. Constantine Zurayk introduced the term “Nakba” (“catastrophe” in Arabic) in 1948 to name the unparalleled “magnitude and ramifications of the Zionist conquest of Palestine” and its historical “rupture.” When Eghbariah argues for “Nakba” as a “new legal concept,” he underlines, however, that to understand its magnitude, one needs to go back to the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which the British colonial power promised “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, even though just 6 % of its population were Jewish. From Nakba as the “constitutive violence of 1948,” we need today to conceptualize “Nakba as a structure,” an “overarching frame.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards
a hand holding a deck of cards in front of a christmas tree
Photo by Luca Volpe on Unsplash

Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards

Donald Trump has repeatedly used the phrase “holding the cards” during his tenure as President to signal that he, or sometimes an opponent, has the upper hand. The metaphor projects bravado, leverage, and the inevitability of success or failure, depending on who claims control.

Unfortunately, Trump’s repeated invocation of “holding the cards” embodies a worldview where leverage, bluff, and dominance matter more than duty, morality, or responsibility. In contrast, leadership grounded in duty emphasizes ethical obligations to allies, citizens, and democratic principles—elements strikingly absent from this metaphor.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability
campbells chicken noodle soup can

Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability

Most customers carry a particular image of Campbell's Soup: the red-and-white label stacked on a pantry shelf, a touch of nostalgia, and the promise of a dependable bargain. It's food for snow days, tight budgets, and the middle of the week. For generations, the brand has positioned itself as a companion to working families, offering "good food" for everyday people. The company cultivated that trust so thoroughly that it became almost cliché.

Campbell's episode, now the subject of national headlines and an ongoing high-profile legal complaint, is troubling not only for its blunt language but for what it reveals about the hidden injuries that erode the social contract linking institutions to citizens, workers to workplaces, and brands to buyers. If the response ends with the usual PR maneuvers—rapid firings and the well-rehearsed "this does not reflect our values" statement. Then both the lesson and the opportunity for genuine reform by a company or individual are lost. To grasp what this controversy means for the broader corporate landscape, we first have to examine how leadership reveals its actual beliefs.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump

When ego replaces accountability in the presidency, democracy weakens. An analysis of how unchecked leadership erodes trust, institutions, and the rule of law.

Brandon Bell/Getty Images

When Leaders Put Ego Above Accountability—Democracy At Risk

What has become of America’s presidency? Once a symbol of dignity and public service, the office now appears chaotic, ego‑driven, and consumed by spectacle over substance. When personal ambition replaces accountability, the consequences extend far beyond politics — they erode trust, weaken institutions, and threaten democracy itself.

When leaders place ego above accountability, democracy falters. Weak leaders seek to appear powerful. Strong leaders accept responsibility.

Keep ReadingShow less